|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 23, 2014 12:43:12 GMT -5
If the court ultimately rules that the 'established by the state' is a drafting error then the administration will be on record as to what their intent was. That intent was to force the exchanges to be created. The problem with this is in the NY v US case. Almost exactly the same thing is happening here if the 'drafting error' argument succeeds. Either the states set up their own exchanges or suffer the consequences of the federal government doing it for them. The administration should rightfully get sued again over the 10th Amendment. Shockingly unexpected: the ACA is still a mess. And to think, he used up two years of political capital during a particularly difficult economic period, to pass a law that his own party did not read in its entirety. The worst part? I still don't think we have seen all of this law and the full mess it will ultimately create.Like Nancy so correctly said... we won't know what's in it until it is passed... well, it has passed... and we are seeing it... Nancy was right... just as I knew she was...
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Jul 23, 2014 12:45:29 GMT -5
I agree. The mandates, I think, will be a constant source of litigation. If A gets mandated and B does not then B will sue for equal protection. Multiply this out by over 300 million people in the country and it looks to me like the litigation will never end. The ACA is going to bee litigated for years to come... part of that "tweaking" I've been talking about ever since it was passed... We clearly have different definitions of "tweak" aboutwell. To my way of thinking, a follow on bill or two is a tweak, multiple cases that reach the USSC over core issues of the law, as I firmly believe will be the case in the ACA, is something altogether different.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 23, 2014 12:48:36 GMT -5
And you never responded to me, when I mentioned that the F16 also cost billions, and never flew a combat mission until the Gulf War. So? You never had to rely on any of those aircraft to save your butt, either. Maybe he does not like your style of posting, puppet man. "Puppet man,"... that's a good one... and I couldn't care less whether he likes "my" style or not...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 23, 2014 12:52:11 GMT -5
The ACA is going to bee litigated for years to come... part of that "tweaking" I've been talking about ever since it was passed... We clearly have different definitions of "tweak" aboutwell. To my way of thinking, a follow on bill or two is a tweak, multiple cases that reach the USSC over core issues of the law, as I firmly believe will be the case in the ACA, is something altogether different. Maybe I've been around politics a lot longer than you... and consider such things as mere "tweaks"... rather than a major issue... No attack on your thinking in any way...
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Jul 23, 2014 13:03:54 GMT -5
We clearly have different definitions of "tweak" aboutwell. To my way of thinking, a follow on bill or two is a tweak, multiple cases that reach the USSC over core issues of the law, as I firmly believe will be the case in the ACA, is something altogether different. Maybe I've been around politics a lot longer than you... and consider such things as mere "tweaks"... rather than a major issue... No attack on your thinking in any way... I doubt your first comment, but it's not a point worth arguing. As a point of reference, can you give me an example, and hypothetical is sufficient, of what you would consider a major issue?
|
|
|
Post by magnaestback on Jul 23, 2014 13:07:28 GMT -5
Maybe I've been around politics a lot longer than you... and consider such things as mere "tweaks"... rather than a major issue... No attack on your thinking in any way... I doubt your first comment, but it's not a point worth arguing. As a point of reference, can you give me an example, and hypothetical is sufficient, of what you would consider a major issue? Anything this pos claimed.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 23, 2014 13:11:58 GMT -5
Maybe I've been around politics a lot longer than you... and consider such things as mere "tweaks"... rather than a major issue... No attack on your thinking in any way... I doubt your first comment, but it's not a point worth arguing. As a point of reference, can you give me an example, and hypothetical is sufficient, of what you would consider a major issue? I think that would be more up to you to say... you seem to think this one is... I'd have to say something that can't be worked through litigation, legislation, or EO's... And while I agree it's not worth arguing... I've been hanging around since about '72... you?...
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Jul 23, 2014 13:16:04 GMT -5
I doubt your first comment, but it's not a point worth arguing. As a point of reference, can you give me an example, and hypothetical is sufficient, of what you would consider a major issue? I think that would be more up to you to say... you seem to think this one is... I'd have to say something that can't be worked through litigation, legislation, or EO's... And while I agree it's not worth arguing... I've been hanging around since about '72... you?... We may be just about the same age, my friend. And this may shock you; we were probably on the same side for that one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 14:26:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 23, 2014 14:26:19 GMT -5
Don't be silly. It's two different courts looking at the same evidence and coming up with opposing decisions. It's nothing at all like a jury in a criminal case. Nothing "silly" about it at all... kinda like a hung jury when a different't jury hears the same "evidence" and comes up with a different "verdict"... both courts are a part of our judicial system... No, ab, it's NOT A THING like that. The "evidence" in this case is a law. If a law can be interpreted two different ways by judges - ie: legal experts, it is not well written. And because it is not well written, it is a mess.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 23, 2014 14:52:31 GMT -5
Nothing "silly" about it at all... kinda like a hung jury when a different't jury hears the same "evidence" and comes up with a different "verdict"... both courts are a part of our judicial system... No, ab, it's NOT A THING like that. The "evidence" in this case is a law. If a law can be interpreted two different ways by judges - ie: legal experts, it is not well written. And because it is not well written, it is a mess. As I have said here many times before... all legislation is written in a manner to pass judicial scrutiny before it is even presented... that it sometimes not, is not that unusual...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 23, 2014 14:58:24 GMT -5
No, ab, it's NOT A THING like that. The "evidence" in this case is a law. If a law can be interpreted two different ways by judges - ie: legal experts, it is not well written. And because it is not well written, it is a mess. As I have said here many times before... all legislation is written in a manner to pass judicial scrutiny before it is even presented... that it sometimes not, is not that unusual... Irrelevant. If it fails to pass judicial scrutiny, or can be interpreted in a consistent way by the judiciary, that is a failure of the legislature.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 23, 2014 15:02:19 GMT -5
As I have said here many times before... all legislation is written in a manner to pass judicial scrutiny before it is even presented... that it sometimes not, is not that unusual... Irrelevant. If it fails to pass judicial scrutiny, or can be interpreted in a consistent way by the judiciary, that is a failure of the legislature. That's what makes it "relevant" to this discussion... and shows how little you know about the subject... and how I'm wasting my time with you when I could be doing something more productive...
|
|
|
Post by magnaestback on Jul 23, 2014 15:05:03 GMT -5
Irrelevant. If it fails to pass judicial scrutiny, or can be interpreted in a consistent way by the judiciary, that is a failure of the legislature. That's what makes it "relevant" to this discussion... and shows how little you know about the subject... and how I'm wasting my time with you when I could be doing something more productive...
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 23, 2014 15:17:39 GMT -5
Like Nancy so correctly said... we won't know what's in it until it is passed... well, it has passed... and we are seeing it... Nancy was right... just as I knew she was... That's because Nancy is an imbecile. What's really sad, though, is that you seem to think that's okay. People with her evident lack of brainpower should not be serving as legislators at any level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 15:22:56 GMT -5
Like Nancy so correctly said... we won't know what's in it until it is passed... well, it has passed... and we are seeing it... Nancy was right... just as I knew she was... That's because Nancy is an imbecile. What's really sad, though, is that you seem to think that's okay. People with her evident lack of brainpower should not be serving as legislators at any level. It is not okay.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Jul 23, 2014 15:25:17 GMT -5
All politicians seem to be imbeciles, their only skills seem to be raising money to get elected, and convincing the uninformed to vote for them, once elected they have no clue what to do, and are so stupid that they think they are smart enough to do the job without hiring competent advisers.
|
|
|
Post by magnaestback on Jul 23, 2014 15:26:43 GMT -5
Like Nancy so correctly said... we won't know what's in it until it is passed... well, it has passed... and we are seeing it... Nancy was right... just as I knew she was... That's because Nancy is an imbecile. What's really sad, though, is that you seem to think that's okay. People with her evident lack of brainpower should not be serving as legislators at any level. Speaking of imbeciles........... has Guam capsized yet? Note it seems one side has the LIONS SHARE of imbeciles? ? Truth is the Admiral should have bitch slapped this idiot on the spot.
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Jul 23, 2014 16:01:23 GMT -5
Like Nancy so correctly said... we won't know what's in it until it is passed... well, it has passed... and we are seeing it... Nancy was right... just as I knew she was... That's because Nancy is an imbecile. What's really sad, though, is that you seem to think that's okay. People with her evident lack of brainpower should not be serving as legislators at any level. I find it puzzling that people have that attitude about their tribal affiliations. I sorta doubt the poster has the same cavalier attitude about the other professionals he deals with! Would he be so understanding if his real estate attorney, medical doctor, engineer, accountant etc. just tweaked their way through his affairs? It's easy to see that the fellow has never been in business! Few of our legislators have.... and it shows.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 23, 2014 16:09:29 GMT -5
Note it seems one side has the LIONS SHARE of imbeciles? ? I haven't noticed that. Both sides seem richly supplied with them. Or have you forgotten Todd Akin? Mitt Romney? "Incurious" George W. Bush?
|
|
|
Post by magnaestback on Jul 23, 2014 16:22:41 GMT -5
Note it seems one side has the LIONS SHARE of imbeciles? ? I haven't noticed that. Both sides seem richly supplied with them. Or have you forgotten Todd Akin? Mitt Romney? "Incurious" George W. Bush? Nope, haven't forgotten at all. One thing CERTAIN..... Romney was right on Russia while Bobo the bastard is still looking for his first clue. Again, now that we know whats in it........ its worse than we thought and I'm glad Crazy Harry thinks the border is secure. Tell me there shouldn't be at least a minimum test or IQ to run for political office.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 23, 2014 16:47:17 GMT -5
Like Nancy so correctly said... we won't know what's in it until it is passed... well, it has passed... and we are seeing it... Nancy was right... just as I knew she was... That's because Nancy is an imbecile. What's really sad, though, is that you seem to think that's okay. People with her evident lack of brainpower should not be serving as legislators at any level. I do think it's okay that she knew what she was talking about... and was right on target... if that's your definition of an imbecile... so be it... proof that she was right is this very issue going to the courts...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 23, 2014 16:54:03 GMT -5
That's because Nancy is an imbecile. What's really sad, though, is that you seem to think that's okay. People with her evident lack of brainpower should not be serving as legislators at any level. It is not okay. I'm not really sure whether EY was referring to "it" being okay knowing that Pelosi was right in saying what she did... or "it" was okay that the ACA was not perfect and would need "tweaking"... he didn't say... and I assumed a little in my previous response to him...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 23, 2014 16:56:09 GMT -5
All politicians seem to be imbeciles, their only skills seem to be raising money to get elected, and convincing the uninformed to vote for them, once elected they have no clue what to do, and are so stupid that they think they are smart enough to do the job without hiring competent advisers. That thinking is why you aren't one of them... and why I thank God every day that there's not that many folks like you who are...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 23, 2014 17:00:53 GMT -5
That's because Nancy is an imbecile. What's really sad, though, is that you seem to think that's okay. People with her evident lack of brainpower should not be serving as legislators at any level. I find it puzzling that people have that attitude about their tribal affiliations. I sorta doubt the poster has the same cavalier attitude about the other professionals he deals with! Would he be so understanding if his real estate attorney, medical doctor, engineer, accountant etc. just tweaked their way through his affairs? It's easy to see that the fellow has never been in business! Few of our legislators have.... and it shows. Most all things need "tweaking"... even my doctor had to "tweak" my blood pressure medication before he got it right... my financial adviser had to "tweak" my portfolio before I got the most out of it... etc..... "business" sees it only ONE way... their way...
|
|